Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1887-03-18
Law and Logic.
OLYMPIA, March II, 1887.

ions from eminent jurists not named
in the article, that the said Judge,
| have gone outside of the merits of the
case before them and willfully vio
lated their sworn duty in order 10y
their decision to deprive the womer
of the Territory of their valuable c?
right to the electoral franchise. /
this charge were true, then indeed the
judges have committed a very serious
| Oficnse, and one that should call down
upon their heads the condemnation o
all fair-minded men, and should also
ensure their immediate removal, and
it is to be presumed that such results
will follow if the charge can be fairly
sustained. That President Cleveland
himself reputed woman suffragist
will promptly remove these judges il
they have SO far transgrcsscd theii
duty, civil service reform to the con.
trary Notwithstanding, can scarcely be
doubted. But is the charge true? Let
us examine, and, as Mrs. ii. states
that the women do not understand the
practice of law, we will depend solely
upon the plain principles of logic.
Now what were the questions involved
in the case entitled Harlan VS.. the
Territory, and upon which the decision
complained of depended. The writer
understands them to have been sub
stantially as follows:
l. Did the indictment against Har.
Ian and upon which he was con-
victed, state crime?
2. Was the grand jury finding the
indictment legal grand jury?
If both these questions were an.
swered in the affirmative by any two
of the Judges presiding at the hearing,
the judgment of the District Court
would have been affirmed and SO the
case ended. If either question were
answered in the negative by any two
of the judges, the judgment would be
reversed.
On the first question, Judges Greene
and Turner answered upon their oaths
in the affirmative and Judge Langford
in the negative. This left the pris.
oner with one more question and the
decision to hinge on that alone. In
examining it, the Court found that the
grand jury had been composed of the
requisite number of persons legally
impanneled, but it was insisted for the
prisoner that five of these persons be-
ing married women were not legally
qualified to act as such grand jurors
Why not? The prisoners attorney al
the bar, Mr.. Evans, himself a stauncl
woman suffragist in times past, insist
ed that while the statute of the Terri
tory claimed to have been passed al
the legislative session of 1883 removed
from women the disqualification to ACT
as electors, it did not in terms or by
necessary implication confer upon
them the rights or duty to serve as
jurors. This, it seems to the writer
was somewhat technical argument
but in examining it the judges as logi
clans we're compelled to formulate
something like the following syllogism
Major premise: All electors and
householders arc legally qualified
grand jurors.
Minor premise: The five jurors OBJ
jected to on this jury were electors
and hOuseholders, and
Conclusion by Judge Greene alone
These five women were legally quail
fed grand jurors.
The other Judges formulated as fol
lows:
Major premise: None but electors
can be grand jurors.
Minor premise: The five married
women on this grand jury were moi
electors and
Conclusion: Therefore they were
not qualified grand jurors, from which
follows the legal conclusion that the
grand jury was not a legal grand jury
and the second ground Of error for the
prisoner is sustained and the judgment
is reversed.
In arguing this last minor premise
the Judges had their attention called
to the statute of 1883, amending sec
ton 1850 of the Washington Code
whereupon we may suppose they i'm
mediately formulated as follows:
Major: Amy statute that does no
express in its title the object of th'
proposed law is void.
Minor: This statute does not ex
press in its title the object of the pro
posed law; therefore, this statute i
void.
From all that was here decisive
Judge Greene totally dissented. HI
has not, however, favored an cage
and critical class of reasoners with hi
arguments and reasoning therefor
Will he ever do so? Or will the cham
pions, to whom the fair correspondent
! Of the Oregonian refers, kindly poin